In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise : The reason why the Lakers have more Finals appearance than the Celtics is because of the fact 2 key players died, one in the 80s, Len Bias, and Reggie Lewis in the 90s. How many key players did the Lakers lose due to death?Posted by Fiercest34

Oh, so the two players' death aren't count as Celtics' history? So their records aren't counted?

Also, since the Lakers moved to LA, the eastern conference have dominated the western conference. 1960s - east won all 10 titles 1970s - east-6 west-4 1980s - east-5 west-5 1990s - east-7 west-3 2000s - east-3 west-7 As you can see, it was only last decade that the western conference was able to have more Finals wins than the eastern conference. What this all means is the Lakers were able to make it to the Finals many times because the western conference was most of the time weaker than the eastern conference. Even in the All-Star game the east leads the west in wins, 36-24. Posted by Fiercest34

Umm.... that's funny. Duke was complaining that the east was tough, thus blocking the Celtics from making more finals. If that's the case, then the Celtics' success can't be counted. You can't have a dominant Celtic team (winning all those championships) blocking the tough-luck Celtics from reaching the finals.

But seeing that logic is not your strong suit, I can't blame you.

Discarding the Celtics on your side, also discarding the Lakers on our side, the east vs west was only 18-14 (.5625).

yep.....the East had been the beast since the shot clock came into play.......the tide shifted after many years.....also, you forgot the shot clock era started in the '50's...during the second half of the decade the East won 4 of 5 if I'm not mistaken...the only time they lost....? ...to the Hawks (who would move into the East when Phoenix entered the league as an expansion team).....oh, almost forgot.....Russell was injured in the Finals that year.....Posted by Duke4

You obviously don't know what you are talking about.

If you want to illustrate that the east was tough, thus blocking the Celtics from reaching more finals, then you can't include the Celtics' success in the equation. Are you telling us the dynastic Celtics were blocking the tough-luck Celtics from reaching more finals?

The history book says the Celtics won a championship in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 2000s. I think history has more authority than John Hollinger. Besides, the Lakers are the only franchise in NBA history to lose in each of the 6 decades, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and 2000s. In the 60s the Lakers went 0-6 in the Finals. 1-2 in the 70s, 5-3 in the 80s, 0-1 in the 90s, and 5-2 in the 2k era. The 0-6 Finals record is a record yet to be broken. It's not an easy thing to do, I mean the Bulls and Spurs have never lost in a Finals series. Only in LA folks, only in LA.Posted by Fiercest34

History says the Celtics had 17 successes and 48 failures, the Lakers 16 successes and 47 failures.

17-48 vs 16-47Duke: sound pretty even to me

Fierce even outdid Duke, by counting the Lakers' 1947-48 NBL season to make it 17 for the Lakers, thus 17-48 vs 17-47...

DoctorCO outdid Fierce by discretely counting whatever part of the league history is "important". In his case, the NFL before the Super Bowl era aren't even counted, thus the Steelers, with 6 Super Bowl titles and a total of 6 NFL titles, are the one that own the NFL, outdoing the Packers with 4 Super Bowl titles and a total of 13 NFL titles...

And Russ/Hedley was no slouch. He made an argument of # championships isn't the be-all and end-all of merits. Ask him about Red vs Phil. There goes the argument of most championships == the best.

And 0-6 is no shame at all when you compare to missing the playoffs SIX STRAIGHT YEARS, and seven out of eight. The lone playoff appearance was from a 35-47 weak season...

So, history is not just history, it's not that simple. All four of you are making the cases for the Lakers...

The Lakers were also in that 8-team league and they couldn't even win one single championship. I mean back then the Lakers only needed to beat 3 teams in order for them to win a championship, they couldn't do it, not once! Take away the 5 Minneapolis titles and the Lakers will have an 11-14 record in the Finals. Ugh!Posted by Fiercest34

You can play this take-away game, so can I.

Yeah, take away the bush league era and the Celtics only have 4 championships.

The Lakers' lead is 10-6. Since the '6' is not the Celtics, solace to you. As long as you don't finish runner-up, you feel good...

Are you some kind of insecure weak psycho that get hurts every time someone disses your Lakers?

With seventeen championships to their credit, the Boston Celtics are the most successful franchise in NBA history; among North American professional teams in the "big four" sports, only the New York Yankees (26 championships) and Montreal Canadiens (24) have more titles.

In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise : Fierce asks you to repeat saying that and you comply. Fierce commands and you follow, it's like you're Fierce's puppet. If you want to look like a fool in front of Celtic nation then be my guest.Posted by kybested

What's wrong with it? He asks me to say something as a credit to the Lakers, why would I refuse?

A puppet? your cheap stunt doesn't work. As long as repeating his own argument that incriminates him, I'll do it anytime...

In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise : We sure do. A Celtic fan campaigning for the Lakers, it weights more than all the campaigning you folks do for the Celtics...Posted by MajicMVP

In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise : What's wrong with it? He asks me to say something as a credit to the Lakers, why would I refuse? A puppet? your cheap stunt doesn't work. As long as repeating his own argument that incriminates him, I'll do it anytime... The fool is the one that gave the Lakers 17 championships...Posted by MajicMVP

Alright, I'll ask you then, how many championship do the Lakers have as of 2011?

In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise : I think you should see a shrink, man! This is not some election that you have to campaign for votes. Duh!Posted by LightSaber

Sure do, it's not just counting championships. You may think it's that simplistic but it's not.

Red/Hedley: 9 rings are better than 11 rings.Duke: 17-48 vs 16-47, sounds pretty even to me.Fierce: 17-48 vs 17-47, by counting the NBL seasonDoctorCO: count only those that he thinks as important, e.g. only in the Super Bowl era for the NFL.

So, you have to learn what counts and what not. Besides, there are more factors to consider for the best even if you know how to count...

In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise : Alright, I'll ask you then, how many championship do the Lakers have as of 2011? How about giving me a straight answer, can you do that?Posted by LightSaber

If you want a straight answer, you have to ask more intelligent questions, like:

1) Counting the NBL season (as Fierce did), how many championships the Lakers have as of 2011?

2) Counting failures too, what's the Lakers' record as of 2011? the Celtics?

In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise : Sure do, it's not just counting championships. You may think it's that simplistic but it's not. Red/Hedley: 10 rings is better than 12 rings. Duke: 17-48 vs 16-47, sounds pretty even to me. Fierce: 17-48 vs 17-47, by counting the NBL season DoctorCO: count only those that he thinks as important, e.g. only in the Super Bowl era. So, you have to learn what counts and what not. Besides, there are more factors to consider for the best even if you know how to count...Posted by MajicMVP

You can't even give a straight answer. Are you afraid of the magic number?

Until you man up and accept reality you're nothing but a clown.

By the way, is there a day that goes by that you don't think about your idol, Fierce34?

In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise : If you want a straight answer, you have to ask more intelligent questions, like: 1) Counting the NBL season (as Fierce did), how many championships the Lakers have as of 2011? 2) Counting failures too, what's the Lakers' record as of 2011? the Celtics?Posted by MajicMVP

Wrong, moron!

Nobody counts how many times an NBA team fails because not all the teams entered the NBA at the same time.

Even if Fierce says the Lakers have 17 championships will it add to the Lakers total of... how many championships do the Lakers have?

In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise : You can't even give a straight answer. Are you afraid of the magic number? Until you man up and accept reality you're nothing but a clown. By the way, is there a day that goes by that you don't think about your idol, Fierce34?Posted by LightSaber

Why should I give you a straight answer? why don't you give me straight answers for my questions?

I know, you wimp out because by answering my questions, you would concede that the Lakers are better, but why would I let you off by giving straight answer to your question while not demanding the same?

So you can say the same thing about yourself:

"I can't even give a straight answer. Am I afraid of the magic number? Until I man up and accept reality I am nothing but a clown."

In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise : Wrong, moron! Nobody counts how many times an NBA team fails because not all the teams entered the NBA at the same time.

Nobody? we are talking about teams that enter the league around the same time, differs by 2 years. So don't wimp out. We are not talking about an expansion team in the 90s.

And if you don't talk about failures, then how come you get (at 06:26 EDT 8/21/2011):

NY Yankees 76-48 -Boston 76-49 .5

Know what that ".5" means? How come they aren't tied?

Of course you don't want to count failures, because that's the Celtics' speciality, but do you think I'll let you?

You want to count titles only. I'll keep banging on the failures, especially the 6 straigth seasons in the 90s/00s that easily highlighted the Lakers 0-6 in the 60s as tremendous success...

Even if Fierce says the Lakers have 17 championships will it add to the Lakers total of... how many championships do the Lakers have?Posted by LightSaber

In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise : Why should I give you a straight answer? why don't you give me straight answers for my questions? I know, you wimp out because by answering my questions, you would concede that the Lakers are better, but why would I let you off by giving straight answer to your question while not demanding the same? So you can say the same thing about yourself: "You can't even give a straight answer. Are you afraid of the magic number? Until you man up and accept reality you're nothing but a clown."Posted by MajicMVP

You say the Lakers are better than the Celtics. In what aspect?

The Celtics have more regular season and NBA Finals wins head to head against the Lakers. How does that make the Lakers better?

Just like Fierce, what you say doesn't count because the Celtics have 17 championships while the Lakers have... how many championships do the Lakers have as of the moment?

In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise : Nobody? we are talking about teams that enter the league around the same time, differs by 2 years. So don't wimp out. We are not talking about an expansion team in the 90s. And if you don't talk about failures, then how come you get (at 06:26 EDT 8/21/2011): NY Yankees 76-48 - Boston 76-49 .5 Know what that ".5" means? How come they aren't tied? Of course you don't want to count failures, because that's the Celtics' speciality, but do you think I'll let you? You want to count titles only. I'll keep banging on the failures, especially the 6 straigth seasons in the 90s/00s that easily highlighted the Lakers 0-6 in the 60s as tremendous success... 17, according to Fierce...Posted by MajicMVP

Fierce said 17 championships? How about you, how many championships do the Lakers have that you know of?

We already know that you're claiming that Fierce said the Lakers have 17 championships. Now I'm asking you how many championships the Lakers have as of August 21, 2011?

In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise : You say the Lakers are better than the Celtics. In what aspect? The Celtics have more regular season and NBA Finals wins head to head against the Lakers. How does that make the Lakers better? Just like Fierce, what you say doesn't count because the Celtics have 17 championships while the Lakers have... how many championships do the Lakers have as of the moment?Posted by LightSaber

Easy

1) As Duke said, the aim is to win a championship, not a championship against the Celtics. So a championship against the Nets or the Magic count as much as a championship against the Celtics. So 9-3 doesn't matter, the Lakers have 16 championships.

6) The Lakers won the majority of the titles in the golden era of the league, so a +6 in the golden era easily outshines a +7 in the bush league era. According to DoctorCO on the NFL: "THE SB takes more precidence and the titles matter"

In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise : Fierce said 17 championships? How about you, how many championships do the Lakers have that you know of? We already know that you're claiming that Fierce said the Lakers have 17 championships. Now I'm asking you how many championships the Lakers have as of August 21, 2011?Posted by LightSaber

Why don't you answer my questons? Are you going to man up or not?

- Counting the NBL as Fierce did, how many championships the Lakers have as of 8/21/2011?

In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise : If you want a straight answer, you have to ask more intelligent questions, like: 1) Counting the NBL season (as Fierce did), how many championships the Lakers have as of 2011? 2) Counting failures too, what's the Lakers' record as of 2011? the Celtics?Posted by MajicMVP

1. NBL championships are not considered NBA championships.

2. There is no official stat counting failures in professional sports.

There, I answered your questions. Now, answer my question, how many championships do the Lakers have as of today?

In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise : 1. NBL championships are not considered NBA championships. 2. There is no official stat counting failures in professional sports. There, I answered your questions. Now, answer my question, how many championships do the Lakers have as of today?Posted by LightSaber

1. First you have to sort that out with Fierce.

2. Incorrect, why are the Red Sox 0.5 game behind the Yankees even though they the same # of success? The standings posted are as official as you can get, and the Yankees are leading.

In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise : 1. First you have to sort that out with Fierce. 2. Incorrect, why are the Red Sox 0.5 game behind the Yankees even though they the same # of success? The standings posted are as official as you can get, and the Yankees are leading. So your answers are not satisfactory. Try again.Posted by MajicMVP

1. Fierce has now become the authority of NBA championships? Are you nuts!